Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
PressBoxOnline

Who Will Be The Next Out-Of-College Pitcher To Make The MLB Hall Of Fame?

Recommended Posts

IMO, a pitcher is gonna blow out their elbow no matter what. There's a only a certain amount of pitches in that arm innings counts and babying them just delays it.

II would love to find a copy of it.

Sports Illustrated ran an article years ago, back in the early or mid 90s.

Said if a pitcher kept his arm under 200 innings by the time, he was 25, then he would have a long career and relatively injury free.

They had all kinds of examples and it made a lot of sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
II would love to find a copy of it.

Sports Illustrated ran an article years ago, back in the early or mid 90s.

Said if a pitcher kept his arm under 200 innings by the time, he was 25, then he would have a long career and relatively injury free.

They had all kinds of examples and it made a lot of sense.

200 total major league innings, or 200 per year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mussina.
that final year with the 'roids sure helped his case. Got that Clemens blip: first-time twenty game winner at the age of 39. Maybe Mike and Roger can share a spot in the Hall...with Kirk Radomski.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMO, a pitcher is gonna blow out their elbow no matter what. There's a only a certain amount of pitches in that arm innings counts and babying them just delays it.

There's a physiological component to the claim. Men grow into their bodies at/around the age 25.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that final year with the 'roids sure helped his case. Got that Clemens blip: first-time twenty game winner at the age of 39. Maybe Mike and Roger can share a spot in the Hall...with Kirk Radomski.

Even if he was, which there is no proof of, I'm sure he was facing his fair share of offenses doing the same thing

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what I think could happen in the next 20-30 years:

1) Baseball tires of the 140-year-old trend of declining pitcher innings totals.

2) Baseball sets a max number of pitchers on the roster. Say 10. But maybe as few as 8.

3) This causes offense to spike, as almost nobody can pitch max effort all the time under those limitations.

4) Traditionalists howl that we're going back to steroid-level offenses.

5) They deaden the ball to make up for it. Maybe raise the mound, or expand the zone.

6) With a limit on number of pitchers and a lower run environment starters' innings go back up considerably.

7) Pitchers begin to have careers where they throw 20 years of 250-300 innings, with 300+ wins.

8) Everyone is happy except for the middle relievers and setup guys who lost their jobs, and the fans who really liked eight-pitcher games.

9) 85-year-old BBWAA members can go back to voting only for guys with 300 wins, goshdurnit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2020 Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2020 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






  • Posts

    • Thinking about it a little more: The Orioles were not good when they traded for Glenn Davis.  They were coming off a 76 win 1990 season but there was some reason for optimism.  1989 had been great and with Ben McDonald and Mussina in the wings, there was some young talent to look forward to.  If they don't trade for Davis and keep Schilling, Finley and Harnisch, they might not be as bad in 1991.  And in 1992, they could have won more than the 89 games that they won.  The whole 1990s probably looks a lot different for this franchise, including the playoff years of 1996 and 1997. I'm 50/50 on this one, honestly.  I can see it both ways.
    • There's nothing stopping a team from not offering guaranteed contracts, other than the fact that the only players you would get are the guys no other team will offer a contract to.  Guaranteed contracts are a drop in the bucket to the Yankees, Red Sox, and Dodgers.  They can afford the inevitable losses on some of those deals.  Teams like the Orioles and Rays can't afford those huge losses and have to be much more careful.  There's no way that the Yankees and the other rich teams will ever give up that competitive advantage and stop offering guaranteed contracts..
    • Well, yeah.  But as far as player personnel moves go.
    • That's a tough one.   But I think Glenn Davis
    • Thinking about this in @Sports Guy's choose one thread: There are two absolutely atrocious franchise altering deals that this franchise has made.  I'm probably missing another obvious one like the Eddie Murray deal.  While that deal was bad, I don't think it comes close to the Chris Davis contract and the Glenn Davis trade. The Orioles traded Curt Schilling, Pete Harnisch and Steve Finley to the Astros for Glenn Davis before the 1991 season.  Davis was a tremendous flop, could never stay healthy while Curt Schilling went on to a borderline HoF career, Steve Finley hit 300 homers and stole 300 bases, won Gold Gloves and Harnisch ended up being a very solid pitcher. I don't think anyone could have predicted back then that those three would go on to reach the heights that they did.  Now I was 9 when the Orioles traded for Glenn Davis, I remember being excited about it.  I'm not sure what older and more sophisticated fans were thinking. I don't need to re-hash what a disaster the Chris Davis contract has been.  The issue here for me is that we can see what Schilling, Finley and Harnisch did over their careers and while they might not have been able to replicate those careers in Baltimore, it's easier to think that they could have done so. With the Davis contract, the "what if's" become a lot more murkier.  If we let Davis walk, do we re-sign Machado?   What else could that money have been spent on?  What would the roster look like today?  It's a lot harder to say. So Glenn Davis vs. Chris Davis.  Which was the worst in the history of this franchise?
    • See? That's where you messed up! You've been back on track since then tho...
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...